AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Alok Sharma, J.
This contempt petition has been filed alleging non compliance of the judgment dated 11-7-2013 passed in SBCWP No. 11871/2012, wherein this court held the petitioner college entitled to payment within three months of grant-in-aid as approved.
The issue in this contempt petition is not about the liability to pay as directed but with regard to procedure to be adopted for the purpose.
While the counsel for the petitioner Mr. Vivek Dangi emphatically submits that in terms of a holistic reading of the judgment dated 11-7-2013 and in terms of the Rajasthan Non Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (hereinafter ''the 1989 Act'') and the Rajasthan Non Government Educational Institutions Rules,1993 (hereinafter thei1993 Rules'') the amount of grant-in-aid is to be provisionally first paid to the grantee, as a budgetary allocation as the grantee is only a vehicle for payment of salary to its employees on behalf of the State Government to the extent of the grant-in-aid, aside of its own share of the salary to the employees. It has been submitted that an amount of over Rs. 2 crores is to be paid as arrears to the employees of the petitioner college, a charitable institution, which does not have the resources to first make payment of due amounts to its employees and thereafter seek reimbursement from the government. It has been submitted that in the circumstances, the non payment of grant-in-aid due to petitioner college by the respondents under order of this court dated 11-7-2013 on the specious ground that the petitioner college first make payment of dues to its employees and then seek reimbursement as grant-in-aid to the extent approved is nothing but an attempt to circumvent the order dated 11-7-2013. This tantamounts to contempt, as if the requirement of first paying dues to the employees is sustained-contrary to the 1989 Act, 1993 Rules and the judgment dated 11-7-2013 passed by this court, the judgment shall remain only on paper as it is impossible for the petitioner college to comply and pay the amounts due out of its meagre funds.
Mr. Inderjeet Singh, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of respondents submits that in terms of the judgment dated 11-7-2013, more particularly point No. 2 thereof wherein it has been stated that arrears of salary paid by "petitioner college" to "its employees" as a result of revision of pay scales in accordance with the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 1998, the grant-in-aid was not construed as a budgetary allocation where the approved grant-in-aid is to be first paid. The petitioner is only entitled to reimbursement subsequent to payment of due amounts to its employees. Mr. Singh AAG has placed reliance on various judgments/of this court to contend that the aided educational institutions are entitled to grant-in-aid as approved but are first required to make payment of salary and other benefits to its employees on approved posts and only thereafter entitled to reimbursement as per the percentage of grant-in-aid relative to the grantees approved expenses.
Mr. Vivek Dangi in rejoinder has reiterated that in the scheme of the 1989 Act and the 1993 Rules the grant-in-aid is in the nature of a budgetary allocation and not a reimbursement. Reference has been made to Rules 13 and 15 of the 1993 Rules. Attention has also been drawn to the orders dated 24-6-2008 order dated 23-1-2009 and 19-6-2009 passed by Commissioner College Education, and the Commissionerate College Education Jaipur to contend what the said orders refer to adjustments including repayment of surplus amount to the government, in the event of expenses incurred by the grantee institution being less than the amount of grant-in-aid made over to the institution. Counsel submits that the provision for repayment of excess amount of grant-in-aid to the State Government makes it evident that the grant in aid is in the nature of a budgetary allocation and not in the nature of an amount to be reimbursed.
Aside of merits of the case, counsel for the petitioner has referred to judgment of the Hon''ble Division Bench of this court in Ms. Manju Jain v. Mr. Rajiv Mehrishi and Others, D.B. Civil contempt petition No. 350/2014 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2150/2012, wherein this court without addressing the question as to whether the grant-in-aid is a budgetary allocation or an amount to be reimbursed, noted that where outstanding amount of grant-in-aid was spread over several years, in requiring the institution to first make payment of arrears of salary/retiral benefits to its employees and then seek refund would entail extreme hardship. In this view of the matter, the Hon''ble Division Bench directed that as soon as the institution in issue raised its bill to the department for payment of approved grant-in-aid, the department -without insisting upon the institution to first make payment of arrears of salary/retiral benefits to its employees, would release due amounts to the grantee institution within a period of fifteen days on an undertaking to be furnished by the Institution that it would make payment of the amounts to its employees within a period of fifteen days of receipt of the grant-in-aid by way of cheques. Specific reference has been made to para 8 of the aforesaid judgment, which reads as under:
"8. Considering the fact that the large amounts are due as arrears of salaries, which the management is unable to pay, the amounts will be paid without insisting upon the payment of reimbursement."
Albeit it was then stated that the order had been passed by way of an exception, considering the inability of the educational institutions to otherwise pay the amounts due to the teachers.
Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Vivek Dangi submits that the amount due to be paid to employees of the petitioner college under various heads relates to several years and aggregates to over Rs. 2 crores. In this view of the matter, the petitioner college, which is a charitable institution, is unable to first make payment of the same to its employees and then seek reimbursement from the government. The case of the petitioner as exceptional as the case of Ms. Manju Jain v. Rajiv Mehrisihi (supra). Therefore the respondents be similarly directed as did the Hon''ble Division Bench in contempt petition No. 350/2014 decided on 17-3-2015 to make payment of the due approved grant-in-aid without insisting upon first payment and then seek reimbursement subject to the conditions of furnishing accounts to the respondents satisfaction.
Counsel submits that the circumstances in the case at hand are as exceptional as before the Division Bench.
Having heard counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the judgment dated 11-7-2013, whereby this court directed that the entire exercise for grant of approval and release of the grant-in-aid be completed within a period of three months in accordance with the 1989 Act and the 1993 Rules, and in view of the Rules 13 and 15 of the 1993 Rules, as also various orders issued by he Commissioner College Education and Chief Accounts officer of the government, indicating that grant-in-aid under the Act of 1989 and the Rules of 1993 is in the nature of a budgetary allocation and finally in view of similarity of exceptional circumstances as in the case of Ms. Manju Jain v. Rajiv Mehrisihi (supra), DB Contempt Petition No. 350/2014 in DB Civil Writ Petition No. 2150/2012, I am of the considered view that in the event the petitioner college were to be required to first make payment of salaries/other benefits to its employees under various heads for several years and then seek reimbursement, it would not only cause unwarranted hardship to the petitioner college, a charitable institution, but also render it impossible for it to avail the benefits of the final judgment dated 11-7-2013. Therefore, I direct as under:--
"(i) The amount of grant-in-aid due to the petitioner college be paid to it in terms of the order dated 11- 7-2013, by the government in four equated instalments, without insisting upon the petitioner college to first pay its employees and then seek corresponding reimbursement.
(ii) The amount of first instalment of approved grant-in-aid be paid on a provisional basis within a period of four weeks from the date of submission of bills duly drawn by the petitioner college after fixation of salary of its employees in terms of direction of this court under order dated 11-7-2013 and determining the consequent aggregate amount reckoning for the valid and lawful dues of all its employees.
(iii) The petitioner college would prior to release of the instalment file an undertaking that the amount due to its employees shall be paid through cheques and the proof of receipt thereof by the employees of petitioner college shall be furnished before the government within a period of fifteen days from the date of release of the instalment''s.
(iv) The second, third and fourth instalments of the amount of grant-in-aid shall be released by the government in the same manner as the first, and on each occasion proof of disbursement by cheques of the amounts as detailed above shall be furnished by petitioner college within a period of fifteen days from the date of release of the amount by the government.
(v) As the time of disbursement of each of the four instalments towards grant-in-aid due to the petitioner College specific undertaking shall be filed by its Chairman/Secretary of the Managing Committee that due amounts to the college''s employees shall be paid only by cheques."
The contempt petition stands disposed of accordingly.
In the event of any clarification being required for the mechanism determined by this court, the parties shall be free to move an application.